News Release

Edwin Bender or Rachel Weiss, 406-449-24802007-06-22
HELENA, Mont. – Well-known for his efforts to enact Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) ballot measures in the 2006 election cycle, Howard Rich also directed money to support eminent domain measures in seven of the 13 states that had the issue on their ballots, a new report finds.

According to the study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, 10 organizations affiliated with Howard Rich provided $6 million to committees in seven states and made up more than two-thirds of the contributions raised by proponent committees. Committees in California and Arizona received the lion's share of the cash, $3.37 million and $1.25 million, respectively.

Property-rights measures appeared on more ballots than any other issue in 2006 and generated nearly $29.6 million in campaign contributions.

The report, "Eminent Threat?" examines campaign contributions to ballot measure committees formed to support or oppose the property-rights measures on the ballot in 2006 in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington.

Opponents of the measures — mostly governmental organizations, labor unions and environmental advocates — also gave in multiple states. The Nature Conservancy, which opposed the measures, was the second-largest contributor overall, spreading $1.86 million across three states.

The Institute is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that collects and analyzes campaign contributions to state-level candidates, party committees and ballot measures committees in all 50 states. The resulting database, complete back to the 2000 election cycle, is freely available to the public at www.FollowTheMoney.org.

"In Eminent Threat? we highlight the efforts of a single individual to influence directly the public-policy process," said Edwin Bender, executive director of the Institute. "The public needs to know when organizations or individuals spend vast amounts of money across state lines to influence policies that affect citizens' daily lives."

Opponents vastly outraised proponents, gathering $20.7 million to the $8.8 million raised by committees supporting the measures. However, the bulk of the money raised by opponents — $14.3 million — came in one state, California. In this case, money was not the deciding factor in the success or failure of the measures: all but three of the measures passed.